Totally depends on exactly what the modification is. If it's raising the level of a natural drought resistance gene or even protein levels, great. If it was to make the plant produce a mind-altering hallucinogen so teh government can control the population, maybe not.

You're probably looking for an argument about whether selective breeding is genetic engineering, but in the usual sense of the phrase, per Wikipedia, there are no genetically modified tomatoes on the market. A lot are being grown for research though.

Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

Ambivalence:Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

I think in Free-Market America that it's anti-business for companies to have to list if their ingredients are GMO. Who's to say what GMO does or doesn't do to people over the long run, so why should it have to be labeled prematurely? In essence you're creating a blacklist of products, and we all know how bad blacklists have been in our history.

If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.

The lovely thing about people who scream and yell about Monsanto can't back up their claims without citations to poorly written, extremely biased sites with URLs like Monsanto Is Going To Kill You Dot Com.

New York Times did a lovely write-up about a Hawaiian politician who actually searched out answers. It's a great read.

Ambivalence:Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically. People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.

The science is very solid on the safety of GMOs. The few scare studies that the science-illiterate paranoids like to quote are either non-existent, or don't support their claims, or are of Wakefield caliber.Labeling is expensive --not the label per se, but the infrastructure required separate and to keep track of what ingredients may or may not be GMO. All that to pander to dumb chicken-little douchebags.There's a town in Ontario that has a by-law saying new houses cannot have the number 4 in the address, coz 4 scares the superstitious immigrants of Chinese origin. Putting GMO labels is stupider than that by-law by a factor of 100.

Ambivalence:That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination.

I dunno, that seems like a prudent failsafe to me. It seems like a really bad idea to introduce a GM for plant into the ecosystem without it having a built in kill switch to keep it from reproducing unchecked, especially since plants swap DNA much more readily than animals. Sure, it makes farmers dependent on Monsanto for new seeds, but after seeing so many issues with invasive species like kudzu getting out of control after being introduced as a beneficial species, I'd rather err on the side of caution and add the terminator genes into GM crops until we have more experience with how they interact with other species and the overall environment.

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Doc Daneeka:Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

People freak the fark out at the prospect of GMOs escaping and propagating "in the wild." Terminator genes prevent that from happening.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, basically. People protest terminator seeds, but if the seeds weren't sterile, they would be protesting the prospect of GM plants propagating uncontrolled.

Trocadero:If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.

Because for the manufacturers, putting a label "may be GMO" scares off consumers, or may scare off the customers. So they take out any ingredients which may qualify. And consumers get worse/dearer foods as a result.

The Greenies love it bc they don't have to win the rational debate, they only have to win the emotional one

xanadian:Ambivalence: Up until a couple centuries ago, carrots were all purple, not orange. Orange carrots are a result of a genetic mutation that made carrots more popular. Mutations are a natural part of biology.

That being said, terminator plants (that, when grown produce sterile seeds that cannot be replanted) are an abomination. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modified food. What is right or wrong is how and why genetics are modified. Modifying genetics to allow marginal lands to be abundant is fine. Modifying genetics to force market dominance as a seed supplier is not.

snocone:Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh

But we all agree,mon-san-toh is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.

Trocadero:If it's not that big of a deal, why are the food suppliers so hell bent and spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labels? Slapping a GMO label on something doesn't cost as much as they claim. It always bugged me that booze was somehow exempt from nutrition labels; if they cut gin w/ turpentine, I'd like it clearly labeled, so I serve that first at a work party and save the good stuff for me.

It's a big deal because of public perception, which is not necessarily scientifically-literate.

Imagine if producers of bottled water were compelled to put on a big red label "This product contains dihydrogen monoxide."

yoyopro:snocone: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease.

Selective breeding, the intentional breeding of organisms with a desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.

Oh yea, pretty much the same thingie. eh?

puh-tey-toh

tuh-mey-toh

But we all agree,mon-san-toh is evil . . . .

Life forms wander to all living lands, and should not be claimed by the owner of the land they wander from.

Genetically modified foods are probably the only reason humans still have enough food to support the current population. Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution made this possible, and it started with him crossing as many varieties of wheat every which way possible in the ultimate act of "throw enough shiat against the wall, some of it will stick". The advances that have allowed us to read complete DNA make-ups of plants, and reliably alter their genes is like going from Ford's original production line, to their current one in about one-third time.

Monsanto (and Cargill and Pioneer and Dow...) all suck because of other business practices, like suing farmers whose crops got their "proprietary" DNA strain via cross-contaminated. Or even patent the DNA of a plant and then sue the farmers who have been farming it for years (happens more in South America).